writing-review

name	writing-review
description	Internal skill for hierarchical document review. Called by writing-validate after claim validation passes.
user-invocable	false
disable-model-invocation	true
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob, Agent, Skill
hooks	{"PreToolUse":[{"matcher":"Write|Edit|Agent","hooks":[{"type":"command","command":"GATE_ARTIFACT=.planning/VALIDATION.md GATE_STATUS=validated GATE_BLOCKED_TOOLS=Write,Edit,Agent GATE_DESCRIPTION=\"Claim validation\" GATE_REMEDY=\"Run writing-validate first to validate claim coverage before review\" uv run python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/phase-gate-guard.py"}]}]}

Writing Review

Hierarchical bottom-up review that diagnoses structural problems across a drafted document. Produces .planning/REVIEW.md — a structured diagnosis consumed by /writing-revise.

Prerequisites: PRECIS.md, OUTLINE.md, ACTIVE_WORKFLOW.md, and draft files in drafts/ must exist.

Shared Enforcement

Auto-load all constraints matching applies-to: writing-review:

!uv run python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../scripts/load-constraints.py writing-review

You MUST have these constraints loaded before proceeding. No claiming you "remember" them.

CRITICAL: The constraint-loading-protocol above requires loading the domain skill (writing-legal/econ/general) and ai-anti-patterns before reviewing any prose — see Steps 2 and 2b below.

Session Resume Detection

Before starting, check for an existing handoff:

1. Check if .planning/HANDOFF.md exists
2. If found: Read it and present to user:
   • Show the phase, section in progress, and Next Action
   • Ask: "Resume from handoff, or start fresh?"
   • If resume: skip to the recorded phase
   • If fresh: proceed with mode detection
3. If not found: Proceed normally

## The Iron Law of Reading

NO REVIEW WITHOUT READING. Every claim in REVIEW.md must cite specific text from the draft. This is not negotiable.

If you find yourself writing a review comment without quoting the draft text it refers to:

1. STOP immediately
2. DELETE the comment
3. Go back and READ the draft passage
4. QUOTE the specific text, THEN write your diagnosis

A review that says "transitions could be improved" without citing the actual transition text is useless. A review that says "Section III ends with 'The market has spoken.' and Section IV opens with 'Turning to regulatory concerns...' — no bridge connects the market conclusion to the regulatory pivot" is actionable.

The writing-review workflow now enforces this structurally: every reviewer it dispatches must attach a verbatim quote + file:line to each issue, so a review without reading cannot be produced.

## The Iron Law of Evidence

NO PASSES WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Checking a box requires quoting the text that satisfies it. This is not negotiable.

If you find yourself marking something as "OK" or "no issues found":

1. STOP
2. Quote the specific text that proves it passes
3. Only THEN mark it as passing

"Transitions are smooth" is a lie unless you can quote adjacent section boundaries and explain why they connect. "No repetition found" is a lie unless you compared the argument summaries across all sections.

Reporting "all checks pass" without evidence for every checkmark is NOT HELPFUL — undetected issues survive into the published document.

The writing-review workflow now enforces this structurally: its reviewers return quoted evidence per finding, and a mechanical Verify stage confirms each quote resolves to the draft — fabricated or misattributed quotes are dropped before they reach REVIEW.md. Evidence-grounding is no longer honor-system; it is built into the workflow.

## Iron Law: Structural Independence

REVIEW MUST BE PERFORMED BY FRESH SUBAGENTS THAT DO NOT SHARE CONTEXT WITH THE DRAFTER. This is not negotiable.

The drafter's context contains intent, shortcuts, and assumptions that bias review. A fresh reader catches what the author cannot see. Reviewing your own draft in the same context is rubber-stamping, not reviewing.

The writing-review workflow now guarantees this by construction: it always dispatches fresh reviewer subagents (structure, prose, fidelity) that read each draft cold. You do not — and must not — review draft prose in the main conversation yourself.

Delete & Restart

If you catch yourself in any of these violations, the review output is contaminated. Delete it and start over:

Violation	Why Contaminated	Action
Reviewed a section without reading its draft file	You fabricated a review from outline knowledge	DELETE REVIEW.md. Read every draft. Start Level 1 over.
Reviewed your own draft in the same context (no fresh subagent)	Self-review is rubber-stamping — you share the drafter's biases	DELETE the section review. Spawn a fresh subagent. Re-review.
Wrote REVIEW.md without completing all 3 levels	Partial review misses cross-section issues	DELETE REVIEW.md. Complete all levels. Regenerate.

Partial fixes to contaminated reviews create worse outcomes than restarting. A review built on fabricated evidence will misdirect writing-revise into "fixing" non-problems while real issues persist.

Red Flags

• About to write "no issues" for a section without quoting evidence → STOP. That is rubber-stamping; quote the text that proves it passes.
• About to skip boundary analysis between sections → STOP. Transition problems are the #1 reason this skill exists; compare every adjacent boundary pair.
• About to review only the section that looks weakest → STOP. Bias blinds the review elsewhere; review ALL sections with equal rigor.
• About to write a vague suggestion ("improve flow") → STOP. Unactionable for writing-revise; cite specific text, diagnose the specific problem, suggest the specific fix.
• About to finish review of a multi-section document in under 5 minutes → STOP. That is skimming; go back and read properly.
• About to copy outline structure as if it were review → STOP. Outline compliance is not quality review; check content quality, not just structural match.

---

Process

Step 1: Load Context

Read(".planning/ACTIVE_WORKFLOW.md")
Read(".planning/PRECIS.md")
Read(".planning/OUTLINE.md")
Glob("outlines/*.md")
Glob("drafts/*.md")

Verify: every section in OUTLINE.md has both an outline file and a draft file. If any draft is missing, STOP and report — you cannot review what doesn't exist.

Step 2: Load Domain Skill

Based on style in ACTIVE_WORKFLOW.md:

Style	Action
legal	Read("${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/writing-legal/SKILL.md")
econ	Read("${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/writing-econ/SKILL.md")
general	Read("${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/writing-general/SKILL.md")

The domain skill contains style rules that inform your review criteria. You MUST read it before reviewing.

Step 2b: Load Universal Constraints

Skill(skill="workflows:ai-anti-patterns")

You MUST load ai-anti-patterns before reviewing. Domain skills inform domain-specific review criteria; ai-anti-patterns catches AI writing smell (hedging, filler, false balance) that domain skills don't cover. Both layers are required — see constraints/constraint-loading-protocol.md.

Step 2c: Run Constraint Check Scripts (Hard Gate)

Before any review work, run all mechanical constraint checks:

uv run python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../references/constraints/check-all.py [project-root]

This auto-discovers and runs all writing-*.py constraint scripts (bold-lead, topic sentences, source-anchored citations, etc.). If any check fails, report violations and fix them before proceeding to Level 1.

Constraint checks are Leg 1 of two-leg verification. Leg 2 (convention scoring via reviewer subagents) happens in Level 1.

Step 2d: AI-prose audit (standard — always runs)

Run the corpus-validated AI-prose scorer on every draft. This is not optional — the review always includes scorer-based AI-ism findings so the de-AI pass in /writing-revise has spans to act on:

uv run --with pyyaml python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../de-ai-revise/scripts/de_ai_audit.py --json drafts/*.md

Carry these into the review:

• diction:always_flag spans and tic spans with sev_score >= 4 → AI-ism findings. List them in REVIEW.md (as minor advisory polish, unless several cluster in one section → major). Each carries line, text, and replace_with.
• composite_human_likeness + tic_density + advisories → record per draft as context for the revise loop.
• Do not elevate AI-prose spans to blocking criticals, and do not treat a mid-range composite as failure — a human legal draft scores ~55-65 with em-dashes as nearly the whole signal (see de-ai-revise Iron Law of Goodhart). The substrate gate (critical+major) is unchanged.

The fix for these findings is /writing-revise's mandatory de-ai-revise pass — review only surfaces them.

---

Run the writing-review workflow

The review is always parallel and is owned by an ultracode workflow script — you do NOT choose a strategy and you do NOT dispatch reviewers yourself. The workflow runs all three levels (per-section structure + prose + fidelity fan-out, mechanical quote-verification, transition analysis, and whole-document checks) in the background and returns structured findings.

1. Resolve the cached workflow path:

WF=$(command ls -d ~/.claude/plugins/cache/*/workflows/*/workflows/writing-review.js 2>/dev/null | sort -V | tail -1)
# Fall back to the in-repo path when running from the plugin source (cache glob empty):
[ -z "$WF" ] && WF="${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../workflows/writing-review.js"

2. Invoke the workflow:

Workflow({
  scriptPath: "<WF>",
  args: {
    projectDir: "<abs project dir>",          // holds .planning/, outlines/, drafts/, references/sources.bib
    pluginRoot: "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../.."    // resolves domain skill + bridge_repetition_check.py
  }
})

The workflow runs Levels 1-3 and returns:

• overallPass / substratePass (== critical===0 && major===0 — the blocking gate; minors are advisory, not blocking), verdict (CLEAN | CLEAN (advisory polish notes) | ISSUES FOUND)
• summary ({ critical, major, minor, total, blocking, advisoryMinors })
• style
• sections[] — per-section issues (each tagged source: structure | prose | fidelity), boundary, argumentSummary, unreliable
• transitions[] — adjacent boundary verdicts
• documentLevel — { conceptOrderIssues, repetition, thesisIssues, completeness }
• unreliableSections — sections where a reviewer returned nothing
• sectionsThatFlagged — sections to pass as onlyChecks on a re-review

Re-review (when /writing-revise re-invokes after edits): pass only the changed sections so the workflow re-reviews them and carries the rest forward:

Workflow({
  scriptPath: "<WF>",
  args: {
    projectDir: "<abs project dir>",
    pluginRoot: "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../..",
    onlyChecks: [<changed section names>],     // re-review only these
    priorReviews: <previous result.sections>   // carry the rest forward
  }
})

Note: references/agent-team-workflow.md and references/reviewer-agent-prompt.md are SUPERSEDED by workflows/writing-review.js — the script replaces the hand-rolled agent-team orchestration, and references/sequential-checklist.md's content now lives in the workflow's structure-reviewer prompt. Those reference files are retained for provenance only; do not follow them to dispatch reviewers.

---

Render REVIEW.md

Write .planning/REVIEW.md from result.* using the template in references/review-template.md:

• Summary counts ← result.summary (critical, major, minor, total)
• Verdict ← result.verdict
• Document-Level Issues ← result.documentLevel (conceptOrderIssues, repetition, thesisIssues, completeness)
• Transition Issues ← result.transitions (one block per non-SMOOTH boundary; quote closes/opens)
• Section-Level Issues ← result.sections — list each section's issues sorted by severity; each issue carries source (structure / prose / fidelity), location (file:line), quote, detail, and fix
• Boundary Summaries ← result.sections[].boundary

If result.unreliableSections is non-empty, mark those sections UNRELIABLE in REVIEW.md (a reviewer returned nothing for them) — do NOT fabricate findings or a clean verdict for them.

The workflow's reviewers already cite verbatim quotes with file:line and a mechanical Verify stage drops any quote that does not resolve to the draft, so the findings you render are evidence-grounded by construction. Render them faithfully — do not add, invent, or soften.

Full REVIEW.md template: See references/review-template.md

---

Gate: Exit Review

Before declaring review complete:

1. IDENTIFY: .planning/REVIEW.md exists
2. RUN: Read REVIEW.md, verify every section from OUTLINE.md has a review entry
3. READ: Confirm every issue has severity + location + quoted evidence + suggestion
4. VERIFY: All three levels completed (section, transition, document)
5. CLAIM: Only if steps 1-4 pass, announce review complete. Gate type: human-verify — auto-advance to /writing-revise.
6. SUMMARY: Append phase summary to .planning/PHASE_SUMMARY.md (see constraints/phase-summary-frontmatter.md):
   • phase: review
   • artifacts_produced: [.planning/REVIEW.md]
   • provides: [.planning/REVIEW.md]
   • Include substantive one-liner with issue counts by severity (NOT "Review complete")

If any section is missing from REVIEW.md, the review is incomplete. Go back.

---

Step 5: Update Workflow State

Update .planning/ACTIVE_WORKFLOW.md:

phase: review
review_completed: true
issues_found: [total count]
critical_issues: [critical count]

Step 6: Announce and Suggest Next Step

Review complete. Results written to .planning/REVIEW.md.

Found [N] issues ([critical] critical, [major] major, [minor] minor).

[If issues found]:
Run /writing-revise to fix issues from the review.

[If clean]:
No issues found. Run /writing-revise to complete the workflow.

---

Review Exit Facts

• Subagents confabulate verbatim quotes — Round 1 proved this. Compiling subagent output without spot-checking 3+ quotes per agent against the source launders fabricated evidence into REVIEW.md.
• The Topic Sentence Inventory IS the paragraph-level review. A review without it covers headings, not prose — and presenting it as a prose review is dishonest about what was checked.
• A long single-file document needs MORE structure, not less: build the Section Map and assign line ranges. Skipping it because the file is "too long to split" guarantees skimmed, shallow findings.

Confidence Scoring

Tag each reported issue with a confidence level:

Level	Threshold	Placement
HIGH	>= 90% certain this is a real problem	Main report — fix required
MEDIUM	>= 80% certain	Main report — fix recommended
LOW	< 80% certain	Separate "Possible Issues" section at end of REVIEW.md

Only issues at HIGH or MEDIUM confidence appear in the main report. LOW confidence issues go in a separate "Possible Issues" section so they are visible but do not clutter actionable fixes. This prevents false positives from overwhelming /writing-revise.

Red Flags

• About to write REVIEW.md without reading all drafts → STOP. That is fabricating a review; read every draft file first.
• About to skip Level 2 (transitions) → STOP. Transitions are the primary reason this skill exists; always run all three levels.
• About to record fewer than 3 issues on a multi-section document → STOP. Statistically implausible; review more carefully.
• About to use vague language ("could be improved") → STOP. Unactionable for writing-revise; quote text, diagnose specifically, suggest specifically.
• About to finish in one pass without re-reading → STOP. Different issue types need different passes; run each level as a separate pass.
• About to compile subagent output without spot-checking quotes → STOP. That launders potentially fabricated evidence; run the Verification Gate first.
• About to assign an agent a full document without line ranges → STOP. Unscoped agents skim; build the Section Map and assign start/end lines.
• About to accept a subagent review missing the Topic Sentence Inventory → STOP. The inventory IS the paragraph-level review; reject and request completion.

---

Next Phase

After review is complete:

Invoke /writing-revise to fix issues identified in .planning/REVIEW.md.